Re: David C Ullrich -> 1 = 4 AND SUDDENLY SILENT !
- From: David C. Ullrich <dullrich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:14:34 -0600
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 17:04:14 EST, amy666 <tommy1729@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
i wrote :
David wrote :
[...]-
Hmm. Now watch the following very carefully,
Timmy - it's what you're supposed to do when you
make a mistake. It's what you have to do when you
make a mistake if you want people to take you
seriously:
Oops. Sorry, of course what I said was ridiculous
I had something a little backwards.
See how that works?
The alternative is that I could kick up my heels
and complain about how obnoxious you are,
go on about your general ignorance, etc.
But when people saw me trying to _defend_
an obvious error they'd decide I really wasn't
interested in getting things straight, and then
they wouldn't believe me about things in the
future.
[...]
hint : 1 =/= 4 !!
learn some math before correcting mine.
whats a matter david ullrich and denis feldmann ??
SUDDENLY SO QUIET !!??
you want to derive the attention to the posts where you belittle me instead of YOUR blunders hmm ???
What the hell is your point? I admitted I was wrong - why
should I reply when you point out the error _again_,
_after_ I've published my retraction?
all HONEST men here on sci.math HAVE TOO AGREE :
trying to give a condition for AB = BA is better than
posting something equivalent to 1 = 4 while at the same time insulting others !?
so who is the kid now hmm ?
tommy1729
David C. Ullrich
"Understanding Godel isn't about following his formal proof.
That would make a mockery of everything Godel was up to."
(John Jones, "My talk about Godel to the post-grads."
in sci.logic.)
.
- References:
- Re: David C Ullrich -> 1 = 4
- From: amy666
- Re: David C Ullrich -> 1 = 4 AND SUDDENLY SILENT !
- From: amy666
- Re: David C Ullrich -> 1 = 4
- Prev by Date: Re: lets turn the tables
- Next by Date: Re: Book on complex analysis for a beginner
- Previous by thread: Re: Commuting mirror images (was: David C Ullrich -> 1 = 4 AND SUDDENLY SILENT !)
- Next by thread: Re: f(2x)=4f(x)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|